Next up: Colbert Busch vs. Sanford

Voters across the 1st Congressional District, redrawn after the 2010 U.S. Census, headed to the polls Tuesday in a primary to replace former U.S. Rep Tim Scott, who was appointed to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Nikki Haley.

The next month should be interesting as the race between former Gov. Mark Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert Busch heats up.

At stake is the 1st Congressional District seat previously held by Tim Scott. Scott was appointed to the U.S. Senate. Scott replaced Jim DeMint who resigned to head a conservative think tank. Green Party candidate Eugene Platt is the third candidate on the May 7 ballot.

Sanford won last week’s GOP runoff over Curtis Bostic although Bostic narrowly took Beaufort County.

Sun City resident and Forum Club president, Ron Wilson expects Sanford to face a tough challenge in the General Election against Colbert Busch.

“I’m not sure if Sanford will have Sun City votes,” he said. “I think that unfortunately, campaigns are won in negativity and his reputation is a hard thing to overcome.”

Democrat Colbert Busch stressed the positive Thursday and refused to comment on her opponent’s past indiscretions.

“Things are good and we are absolutely positioned to move forward” in the 1st District, she said. “We are going to focus, focus, focus on job creation and we are going to balance that budget and reduce that deficit.”

Sanford is trying to make a comeback after his political career was sidelined in 2009 after confessing an extramarital affair. As a sitting governor, he disappeared from the state for five days only to return and confess to an affair with an Argentine woman, Maria Chapur. He and Jenny Sanford soon divorced and he is now engaged to Chapur.

Colbert Busch, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert, said her famous brother would be back in the district during the next month for another fundraiser although no date has yet been set.

With both candidates receiving campaign contributions from outside South Carolina, Wilson thinks the campaigns will only get more negative.

“Negativity sells. That’s reality. I think he has a tough run ahead of him. It’s surprising that Bostic took Sun City and even Beaufort County, but it was very close. I definitely think voters may change directions in the General Election.”

Wilson predicts a heavier turnout for the May 7 election. Jim Lee, president of the Sun City Republican Club, thinks each party will stick to its own candidate.

“I don’t see people flipping sides, we are Republicans and we will support the Republican candidate. The congressional seat is the most important seat and we need to hold onto it,” Lee said.

While Lee and Wilson predict different outcomes, they agree South Carolina shouldn’t be settling for a 10 percent voter turnout.

“It’s ridiculous, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have a 90 percent turnout in the General Election,” he said. “It’s going to be a tough campaign because there’s a lot of money coming in and Colbert Busch is portraying herself to be closer to a Republican when she is what she is… a left-sided Democrat.”

Scott Marshall, executive director of Beaufort County Board of Elections, anticipates more than a 10 percent voter turnout.

“Both Democrats and Republicans will be at the polls unlike the runoff on Tuesday which was limited to just Republicans,” he said. There were a few factors that played a role in the low turnout. It’s a special election that had a primary for a runoff to General Election so that’s kind of strike on, two and three.”

Marshall said when you add in the time of year where a lot of schools are on spring break, the retired population is taking trips and a lot of voters who have school-aged children were out of town, the voter turnout wasn’t expected to be high.

Colbert Busch, who has always wanted to run for public office, worked in the shipping industry for years and is now on a leave of absence from her position as the director of business development for Clemson University’s Wind Turbine Drive Testing Facility.

Sanford has been frugal with taxpayer money throughout his public career of three terms in Congress and two in the Governor’s Mansion. He has said the nation is at a tipping point regarding federal spending.

“Do we have to look at the budget? Do we have to reduce? Do we have to balance? Absolutely,” Colbert Bush said. But she added she is also looking to the future.

“What we have here is an incredible opportunity for job creation and education. It’s absolutely what is going to happen in this district in the coming years,” she said. “The brightest future is ahead of us.

Staff writer Jessicah Peters and various wire services contributed to this report.

SUN CITY PRECINCT RESULTS

Sun City 1A: 136 Bostic, 122 Sanford

Sun City 1B: 142 Bostic, 130 Sanford

Sun City 2: 71 Bostic, 39 Sanford

Sun City 3A: 110 Bostic, 87 Sanford

Sun City 3B: 113 Bostic, 83 Sanford

Sun City 4A: 120 Bostic, 121 Sanford

Sun City 5: 86 Bostic, 67 Sanford

Sun City 6: 91 Bostic, 85 Sanford

Details: Sun City made up 1,802 of the 10,644 votes cast in Beaufort County.

BLUFFTON PRECINCT RESULTS

Belfair: 86 Bostic, 74 Sanford

Bluffton 1A: 24 Bostic, 32 Sanford

Bluffton 1B: 26 Bostic, 24 Sanford

Bluffton 1C: 57 Bostic, 65 Sanford

Bluffton 1D: 41 Bostic, 17 Sanford

Bluffton 2A: 30 Bostic, 12 Sanford

Bluffton 2B: 46 Bostic, 18 Sanford

Bluffton 2C: 59 Bostic, 37 Sanford

Moss Creek: 138 Bostic, 110 Sanford

Bluffton 3B: 73 Bostic, 81 Sanford

Bluffton 4A: 53 Bostic, 43 Sanford

Bluffton 4B: 76 Bostic, 48 Sanford

Bluffton 4C: 49 Bostic, 37 Sanford

Bluffton 5: 42 Bostic, 24 Sanford

Bluffton 2D: 40 Bostic, 30 Sanford

Details: Bluffton residents accounted for 1,492 votes of the 10,644 Beaufort County votes.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Hey, it must be politics and the old lib tactic to denigrate the candidate. Sanford watched the Superbowl with his kid. Did anyone notice? Were there any news items? Did anyone really care?

Suddenly, Sanford wins a primary and two weeks before the election, headlines flash, even in the national lib news sites like HuffPo cast him in a negative light as a TRESPASSER in his children's home! Move over, Boston, Sanford is a criminal and the judge hasn't even ruled on the case yet!

Elizabeth Busch has some experience working as an employee in business, but what are her attitudes on other issues like abortion, gun rights, states rights and a biggie, labor unions. I haven't seen any info on how she might represent this area where those issues are important. Will she be independent like some of the Blue Dog Democrats or will she be a yes person that votes according to the Obama check list?

Instead of bashing Sanford, how about you Dems tell us how she might vote on those issues. I haven't seen any info in the news.

Absolutely shoot the messenger RH.
Especially when the messenger is a biased, left-wing Press on an agenda.

heron- From what I've heard, she is a very pro union. I know she receives a lot of money and support from unions, so that sums it up for me.
She is also pro abortion.
Haven't heard any details about how she feels about gun control or states rights.
With all the talk over gun control taking place right now in Washington you would think someone from the Press would get in her face and ask some questions about how she feels towards the Bill(s) and amendments being voted on.
But we don't want to making any waves for a democrat running for election in a red state. The Press would rather keep talking about her "fiscal conservatism" than her stance on guns, state rights, abortion, and her pals in the union.

And people wonder why voters seem to lack information when it comes to political candidates.........

Does it really matter what anyone thinks about gun control? The Republican obstructionists in the Senate just made it perfectly clear that they don't give a damn what Americans think.

If you want info on Busch, all you have to do is go to her website. http://colbertbuschforcongress.com/welcome/
But because of your paranoia, you won't bother to read about her. Or the issues. You just want to make sure there is a R in office. So be it. The people of SC will continue to stay poor, uneducated, and unemployed.

I have seen her web page and my questions still are unanswered. In fact her endorsements worry me. Labor unions and John Lewis? Vote for Sanford, QUICK!

As for gun control, blame the GOP if it makes you feel better, but that was in the senate, where Democrats have the majority. lots of Democrats see the pitfalls in gun control and they represent areas where it would be political suicide to vote for it. Even our Dem reps in Georgia next door voted against it. Most gun control advocates are in cities and I can understand their fears, but that doesn't mean that one shoe fits all covers the entire nation, most of which is rural and small towns where self protection is the way of life and cops are few and slow to respond.

If they had made a bill including the mental cases as the main issue, it would have passed the senate and maybe even the house. That is one issue many of us could support.

Four Republicans supported a plan that 90% of American citizens want.
LOL! Talk about "out of touch"!

BTW- Have you even bothered to check out Sanford's site? Or does it matter?
"The ability to pursue one’s dreams, to build a family, to use one’s talents to help others and to glorify God and so much more – rests in a limited government that leaves each one of us with the financial resources and freedom to pursue these things."
(LOL! I think he took that to the extreme when he used our government to pay for his pursuit of his dream. Dream girl, that is.)

It was not 90% that wanted the bill the senate rejected. Sure, we all think some revisions are needed, especially adding the mental background checks. That bill did not say how it would be done and was too broad in scope. IF a detailed plan had been proposed that would allow checks without infringing on personal rights or freedoms, it might have passed. Passing any bill seems to be popular with libs thinking anything would work. Nancy Pelosi and her pass the ACA so we can see what is in it syndrome.

A bill does not have to require personal medical information that might damage the person. All the bill has to do is require a mental background check where a person might be placed in the computer data as an "M" with no personal or medical details. That would mean the person would not be able to buy a weapon until the file is checked and approved/disapproved by say the local sheriff. The sheriff would ask for the person to release medical documents for review and would not allow the sheriff to release that information.That way, the mental and medical records remain sealed. If the sheriff thinks the person is safe to own a weapon, he would approve it.

Republicans "out of touch" MR?
Unfortunately, the people who are "out of touch" are the American electorate thanks to our left-wing media.
The only thing the media has been concentrating on are "background checks". If you were to go by the MSM, you would think this was a simple, 1 page bill that says people should have a background check done if they want to purchase a weapon.
I mean, who wouldn't agree with that?
Unfortunately, the bill is a lot more complex than that, and as heron pointed out, it doesn't really address the issue with the mentally ill.
The other issue is, the bill only targets law abiding citizens and does nothing to punish the criminals. Punish criminals that get caught with unregistered / stolen guns with a federal beef / felony and mandatory prison time. Liberals are never going to win the debate when they only go after legal gun owners and law abiding Americans that simply want to own/purchase a firearm.

Of course people like YOU, Obama and the Press will do everything they can to point their fingers at republicans for not passing a "background check" amendment, as if that was the only thing in the bill.
You fit right in the the brainwashing liberals in Washington and the MSM MR.
Have you ever thought of becoming a journalist?

You can blame republicans all you want MR. But keep in mind that 5 democrats voted against the bill in a democrat controlled Senate.
Perhaps the fact that they are up for re-election had something to do with their votes? Hmmmm......

Reid changed his vote to no in order to preserve the right to bring the bill up again.
The rest probably DID vote no because of re-election hopes. 4 Dems vs. 41 Republicans. Interesting.
But that makes no sense considering 90% of Americans wanted the bill to pass. I wonder who they think they were appeasing?
So the bill didn't DO ENOUGH and that's why it shouldn't have passed? LOL! If it asked for any more restrictions- no chance in hell it would pass. It was already a compromise. Baby steps.
The bill does nothing to punish the criminals? But yet, you think criminals should be punished for illegally obtaining a gun?!?! Well... if it were illegal to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check, then you'd have a basis for punishment. As it is now, it's PERFECTLY LEGAL.
So you are handing guns out to criminals. Hoping they won't do anything illegal with them. And restricting potential charges that can be used against them if they DO commit a crime. Well, that makes sense lol!!!

So what exactly was in the bill that scared you so much? Just curious if you even read it.

Something you said has been bothering me...
"Hey, it must be politics and the old lib tactic to denigrate the candidate. Sanford watched the Superbowl with his kid. Did anyone notice? Were there any news items? Did anyone really care?

Suddenly, Sanford wins a primary and two weeks before the election, headlines flash, even in the national lib news sites like HuffPo cast him in a negative light as a TRESPASSER in his children's home! Move over, Boston, Sanford is a criminal and the judge hasn't even ruled on the case yet!"

I don't think you understand the ramifications of divorce. Sanford had NO RIGHT to trespass on his ex-wife's house. How would you like it if you came home and someone you DIVORCED was sitting on your couch with your CHILD? Without permission??? Just because they were once married and have children together does not mean that he is entitled to invade her privacy and ignore his divorce decree. Especially after he had been warned in the past for doing the same thing! He just can't abide by the rules. And that IS a big deal.

Since the divorce settlement is supposed to be sealed and left up to Sanford, his wife, their lawyers and a family court judge, none of us are knowledgeable about the specifics. I can understand how Sanford's wife may not want him there in HER house without her permission. I assume the same goes for her visiting Sanford's house, some twenty minutes away.

Since what should be private matters makes it to the news, Sanford explained that he tried to call her with no answer and under the visitation privileges decided to visit his son. Whether this is covered in the privileges is not known to any of us and that is a decision the judge will make. If she refused permission and he went anyway would clearly be a violation of a privilege all of us have. No one can enter our homes, even LE officers, without our permission or a court order.

Meanwhile, we can expect these private matters to make headlines until after the election, at which time no one will care what they do or don't do.